Page 76 - No Second Thoughts

31st Jan 2012, 6:00 AM
No Second Thoughts
Average Rating: 5 (2 votes)
<<First Latest>>

Author Notes:

Newbiespud 31st Jan 2012, 6:00 AM edit delete
Newbiespud
Over the weekend, I got to try out My Unknown Ponies: Failure is Awesome. At some point, when I'm not somewhat sleep-deprived, I'll offer a write-up about our experience on my own fledgling blog. At the very latest, it'll be up by Thursday's comic.

58 Comments:

Kaleopolitus 31st Jan 2012, 6:28 AM edit delete reply
Kaleopolitus
Looking forward to hearing about that, Newbiespud :D

It surprised me to hear that RD was Chaotic Evil. Her actions so far haven't been all that evil, if you ask me.
Falgaia 31st Jan 2012, 6:55 AM edit delete reply
There is a big difference between Chaotic Evil and "Chaotic Evil," if you catch my drift.
Trivial 31st Jan 2012, 7:04 AM edit delete reply
They changed the meanings of the alignments in 4th ed. So "chaotic evil" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Kiana 31st Jan 2012, 7:22 AM edit delete reply
Far as I can tell, it still translates to "Pretty much a douche bag."

Frankly, I never use alignments when I can work around it. Part of why I like 4e is because there aren't any alignment-based effects (like Protection From Evil), so it can largely be ignored.

My players' characters have always fallen into one of two general categories: Well meaning (but usually kind of nuts)... and RAGING PSYCHOPATH. There have been far fewer psychopaths, but the ones I've had were pretty... intense. Multiple personality (literally had two minds, in THE most literal way possible. And possible schizophrenic on top of it.) slime monster made of liquid metal that would morph into a spiked form at the slightest provocation, would impale its enemies regardless of circumstances (case in point: The squirrel girls that seemed to largely avoid lethal force? One nearly died. Actually had to spend days being healed, and that's the faction that had super science.) and, oh yeah, it ate by way of MELTING CORPSES and slurping the goo up.

So yeah. I have an aversion to the alignment system on principle, because it's really rather hard to pin ANY human being down to it. Even the character that was literally two humans converted into a homicidal, cannibalistic slime monster was on the side of the 'good guys'.
Shikome Kido Mi 1st Feb 2012, 1:59 AM edit delete reply
I'm pretty sure anyone who deliberately attacks random bystanders because they're bored fits 3.5 Chaotic Evil, too.

Between the fact that a lot of people who choose evil play it far more over the top than required and that many adventuring parties are a lot more psychotic and a lot less good than they think they are, there's plenty of lee-way for a Chaotic Evil Rainbow Dash as shown. Just because she doesn't want the evil goddess to shroud the country in eternal night doesn't make her good and her primary motivation appears to be "killing things".

Plus, Rainbow Dash's player may not have this "role-playing" stuff down perfectly, anyway.
Enchanter Tim 31st Jan 2012, 8:40 AM edit delete reply
Well, 'evil' can be interpreted as an attitude of 'What _I_ want, regardless of what happens to others', it doesn't have to mean 'I want to hurt people/destroy stuff.'
Binary Toast 31st Jan 2012, 10:29 AM edit delete reply
Most people misunderstand that being an "evil" alignment means the need to be evil. I prefer think of it in terms of how far one is willing to go off the moral deep end.
Having played characters all across the slippery slope, all I've learned is that selfish evil is the most entertaining kind for me. Sure, the (literally) inhuman monster I once played was fun, but in an immature way. Not to mention boring.
Bronymous 31st Jan 2012, 11:01 AM edit delete reply
Alignment is all about how you play it. Being Evil could mean different things to different people, and that's when we throw in those modifiers, Chaotic, Lawful, Neutral.

When I play Lawful Evil, I dont hesitate to threaten or kill people, ransack buildings, or what have you, on my way to my goal. Being lawful, I have to follow a set of rules, or a code. I make deals with people, and I don't break them under any circumstance. I help my party out of a sense of duty, despite our obvious alignment differences. I keep a sense of honor when fighting- no kicking while theyre down, no killing an unarmed opponent.

If I was to play CE, conversely, I could decide to play without said code, or have it and abandon it when it suits me. But then the Evil part may be entirely different. Maybe I don't fight and kill people, I just try to manipulate them. Manipulate NPCs into doing what I want, manipulate the Party into doing what I say. Being CE doesn't have to mean "try to kill anything and everything whenever you feel like it."
NekoLLX 31st Jan 2012, 11:31 AM edit delete reply
havingbeen playing Star Trek Onlin recently a think a good example might be Romulans and Klingons as Lawful Evil. Sure they want to destroy the federation but beat them in a fair fight and their quite willing to talk. They have a moral code they will not break. The Breen too.
Neutral Evil would be the Remens they want to destroy the romulans and will use forbidden technology to do it but are fighting for their freedom from slavery so their not doing it for some take over the world stict.

Chaotic evil are ironicly The Borg who either assimilate you taking your good traits, destroying your free will, or reduce you and you world to a smoking pile of slag, there is no reasoning with them no bargaining you ether bend over and take the assimilation probes up the ass or die.
MirrorImage 31st Jan 2012, 1:26 PM edit delete reply
Here's how I like to think of alignments. Lawful vs Chaotic refers to how rigid you are in your methods. For example, given the task of "Kill this [oppositely aligned] man who is posing as a [similarly aligned] Politician," the Lawful character might try to kill him in his home or in some way that mitigates innocent deaths. The Chaotic character, on the other hand, would burn down the Orphanage he's currently visiting after ensuring that he can't escape.

Likewise, on Good vs Evil, a Good character would willingly offer his services to defend a town that asks or play Tax Collector (assuming the tax is fair). A Neutral character might request a modest and completely reasonable sum to cover expenses ("We will be glad to help, but can you spare 1000 gold to cover supplies?"). The Evil character would request not-so-modest sums or would impose his own interest rate on those taxes he's collecting ("Oh, did I say 1000? I meant 1000 for me and each of my 5 party members.")
Kiana 31st Jan 2012, 4:46 PM edit delete reply
"Alignment is all about how you play it. Being Evil could mean different things to different people, and that's when we throw in those modifiers, Chaotic, Lawful, Neutral."

"Here's how I like to think of alignments. Lawful vs Chaotic refers to how rigid you are in your methods."

This is precisely why I don't like Alignment. It's open to too many interpretations. And having dealt with far too many 'chaotic neutral' idiots who think that means being completely random...

I try to implement a system of "Write a few lines describing your character's motivation/morals," which I feel is more reliable in describing a character than a two word combination that I have NEVER seen five different people agree to one definition.

I've also toyed with a Motivation system, where the player chooses a Primary Motivation (such as Duty, Honor or Justice) and two Secondary Motivations (such as Law, Fame, Money, Power). Really, you can put ANYTHING in there. But the fun comes up when the character has conflicting motivations. A character who has the primary motivation of Justice and a second of Law may find themselves torn when the bad guy gets away with breaking the law because of a legal loophole: They want to uphold the law as written, but they despise not being able to see justice done.
Disloyal Subject 16th Oct 2013, 11:44 PM edit delete reply
Damn, & I thought I was being so clever when I came up with that system to help myself flesh out my characters beyond alignment so I could better roleplay them. ...actually, I didn't think about it much at all. Eh, strange/great/whatever minds functioning similarly and all that. I think I'll follow your idea of just throwing out alignment in favor of motivation next time I have the opportunity (read: next time I run a game in a setting without alignment-based in-game effects like Smite Evil)
Lycanthromancer 31st Jan 2012, 7:28 PM edit delete reply
@Bronymous - Amen.

Check out my posts here: http://friendshipisdragons.thecomicseries.com/comics/69/ (There're multiple posts; feel free to look at all of them.)

Best evil character I ever played.
Starburst 1st Feb 2012, 1:01 PM edit delete reply
Manipulation isn't inherently evil though. A Lawful good ruler can manipulate his court into making certain decisions involving running the country they live in, that doesn't necessarily mean that that person is evil. Manipulative is a personality trait tied to skill points. It has nothing to do with alignment.
Burke 31st Jan 2012, 5:21 PM edit delete reply
It's funny, most of the time I see people play "evil" characters, they feel like they need to go out of their way to kick puppies, demolish orphanages, and engage in other, similar nonsense to establish their "evil cred." Generally, people who play evil that way are rolling up a fresh character before session's end.

And yet, it's so much more evil (and sustainable) to go along quietly with the good party until a reliable opportunity to betray them for substantial gain presents itself. Remember, kids: real evil doesn't need to justify itself, it'll sell you out when it's good and ready. And lying about whether you're evil or not? Also evil.
SONIC FREAKING RAINBOOM 1st Mar 2014, 6:07 AM edit delete reply
Yeah, I hate it when somepony makes an enemy out of somepony who's not! Super annoying. However, my grandma is scared of Pipsqueak for some strange, strange reason.
Anthonox 31st Jan 2012, 8:31 AM edit delete reply
RD is CE because it lets her fight anyone, at any time. You don't need to be constantly frothing at the mouth to be CE; a willingness to attack and kill at whim is more than enough. Remember earlier in the adventurer when she attacked Twilight out of boredom. Think about how you would respond to a real person doing something like that.
Classic Steve 31st Jan 2012, 9:04 AM edit delete reply
Yet she waited until the Shadowbolts sounded hostile to fight them. Eh, whatever. At any rate, I'm sure she could rationalize helping the others toward a selfish end.
Ranubis 31st Jan 2012, 9:59 AM edit delete reply
Ranubis
Don't forget Chaotic tend to lean towards fun/amusement types. What would you enjoy best, charging in and beating up some conniving mooks, or taunting them to anger, THEN charging in and beating up some conniving mooks?
Starburst 1st Feb 2012, 1:08 PM edit delete reply
Being a dick and being evil are two completely separate things.
Erin Palette 31st Jan 2012, 9:04 AM edit delete reply
Oh cool. That'll give me time to post an after-action report, list my thoughts on rules changes, etc.
Ranubis 31st Jan 2012, 9:56 AM edit delete reply
Ranubis
NMM: "Well, so much for my monster-themed delays. Still, now those poor ponies face the bane of all adventurers, the dreaded HALLWAY OF SUSPECTED TRAPS! MWAHAHA!

Now, what should I use. The classic pitfall? Swinging blades? A push-block puzzle? Decisions, decisions..."
legomaster00156 31st Jan 2012, 10:39 AM edit delete reply
fter an event I mentioned before (back during the "natural hazards vs. adventurers" stories), I'm not sure I'm evil enough to subject my players to pit traps again until they're capable of flight.
MirrorImage 31st Jan 2012, 1:31 PM edit delete reply
It really depends on the scale of the trap and what the purpose is. Is it supposed to be a Save or Die trap or merely a burn some health trap? It could be a mere 10 foot pit designed to knock someone out of combat for a turn or two or a 30 foot pit designed to deal damage and soften them up for another encounter. Nothing says the trap needs to have pits at the bottom guaranteed to kill a player.
kriss1989 2nd Feb 2012, 12:38 AM edit delete reply
NMM: "Or no traps, so when they don't find any they become super paranoid. That slows down parties like nothing else."
Kaleopolitus 31st Jan 2012, 3:30 PM edit delete reply
Kaleopolitus
I'd say my first comment (the first one on the page) was a blazing succes, considering how many people expressed their views and experiences :D
Newbiespud 31st Jan 2012, 6:40 PM edit delete reply
Newbiespud
Besides, we were long overdue for yet another impassioned discussion on alignment systems in roleplaying games.

Also, it's not a competition.
Kaleopolitus 1st Feb 2012, 1:31 AM edit delete reply
Kaleopolitus
Don't worry, I don't view it as one. I just have the incredible un-life to almost always be the first to see the latest page. So I kind of took it upon myself to try to spark conversations with that opportunity. If someone else did it it'd be all the same to me.

Also, as a side note, I personally think I suck at this. This was the first real succes >.<'
Starburst 31st Jan 2012, 7:02 PM edit delete reply
Rainbow Dash most likely isn't Chaotic Evil, she's most likely Chaotic Neutral. A Chaotic Evil character would turn on their teammates at the first given chance. Rainbow dash is loyal, she'd never turn on her teammates.
Anonymous 31st Jan 2012, 7:57 PM edit delete reply
She JUST SAID in THE COMIC that she was Chaotic Evil. She just plays it differently.
Starburst 1st Feb 2012, 12:52 PM edit delete reply
Silly anon, Evil means you would turn on your teammates as soon as they were no longer useful to you. There's no other way to play chaotic evil. NO. OTHER. WAY. You can say you're Chaotic Evil backwards, forwards, and side to side, but if you hate Law ( which is what a chaotic character most certainly does ) and you also don't hate good ( Meaning you're equally likely to do a good act or an evil act depending on the situation ) You're not Chaotic Evil, You're Chaotic Neutral. Chaotic neutral means you don't like LAW but it means you can do a good or an evil act without any consequences given the circumstance.

So I suggest you shut your mouth and learn what alignment actually means before you start talking out of your ass. I've been playing dungeons and dragons for years, and although Rainbow Dash is selfish, she'd never willingly turn and attack any of her teammates.
Newbiespud 1st Feb 2012, 8:26 PM edit delete reply
Newbiespud
Holy second paragraph, Batman!

Starburst. I love these discussions, I really do, but it doesn't take much to look like a bigot here. Watch what you say a little more carefully.
Shikome Kido Mi 2nd Feb 2012, 1:49 AM edit delete reply
Very good. Now define "no longer useful" and remember adventuring back up isn't a bad idea.

Then remember THIS Rainbow Dash isn't the same as the one one TV (who didn't attack Twilight out of boredom. Few of the characters in a "humorous comic made by making new dialogue to still images from a show" (of which I have read several) are very close to their canon selves. Saying Rainbow Dash wouldn't ever betray her comrades based on that is based on false assumptions.

Shikome Kido Mi 2nd Feb 2012, 1:59 AM edit delete reply
You might as well say "Chancellor Valorum isn't a crazed hedonist gone mad with power":
http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0130.html
Raxon 15th Jun 2012, 1:08 PM edit delete reply
Personally, I think I would play chaotic evil as more a "huge jerkass" character, than a raving psychopath. The difference between that and Chaotic Neutral is that a CN character has something to make up for their jerkass tendencies. My character would just be an ass because he would have no redeeming qualities, apart from maybe being a little humorous about what he does.
Guest 31st Jan 2012, 8:44 PM edit delete reply
"Rainbow Dash is loyal, she'd never turn on her teammates."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoDfRGV7KJc
Dusk 1st Feb 2012, 11:27 PM edit delete reply
You have to remember, this game is being played with 4e rules, that means there is no such thing as Chaotic Neutral. The choices are Lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.
Kiana 2nd Feb 2012, 1:29 AM edit delete reply
These arguments? They are exactly why I don't include alignment in any game I run.
Shikome Kido Mi 2nd Feb 2012, 10:04 PM edit delete reply
Oddly I have not ONCE had a serious argument about alignment in a game.

It's only on the internet that I run into the crazies.
Starburst 3rd Feb 2012, 9:58 PM edit delete reply
That's exactly why I don't play 4e. With a second axis there isn't a second extreme alignment on the good or evil axis. The good/evil/chaos/law/neutrality works fine, because it encompasses everything.
Disloyal Subject 16th Oct 2013, 11:32 PM edit delete reply
Since no one else bothered to point it out... Evil doesn't have to hate good. Evil paladins have to, and evil clerics are likely to, but they're just as likely to be motivated by, say, greed. Evil ≠ two-bit scenery-chewing slab of raging ham.
And don't cuss at your fellow commenters, it's crude.
Dragonflight 31st Jan 2012, 8:53 PM edit delete reply
There's Evil, and then there's Eeeeevil.

To put in in perpective, a guy from an old AD&D game was a bit of a munchkin power-gamer. (Okay, a LOT of a power gamer, but I digress...) He built a necromancer/death priest dual-class, precisely because the death priest had access to Enchantment/Charm in their approved spell lists, which in the old system, Necromancers couldn't cast. AND he had triple-strength necromantic spell power because of the stacking effects of both classes. (Like I said earlier...)

Anyway, the necromancer was Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies. When we got into combat, if there was a chance to prepare it, he'd place everyone like chess pieces, and open up with ranged necromantic attacks with Spectral Hand to debilitate the enemy with Ghoul Touch or other similar effects, so the party could drop the big bad monsters in no time.

He also animated the carcass of a Dragon Turtle we found in our adventures and turned it into a giant wagon/research lab. Once built, he would send out his crow familiar to grab random forest animals so he could dissect them and study what made them tick while we were traveling.

When we picked up a druid, and she became upset at his behavior, he animated a dead horse, had elaborate and expensive barding added to the skeletal horse, and had it delivered by an Orc undead he'd animated and put in livery, just so he could be a massive jerk about saying that he didn't care what the druid thought...

Despite that, the player was actually a nice guy. Very intelligent, and willing to recognize when he was going over the top. But when he played the necromancer, he was Capital "E" Eeeeevil.

I think we eventually parted ways at some point. But he really creeped us out.
Akouma 31st Jan 2012, 11:53 PM edit delete reply
That is probably the best story I've ever heard about nutjob evil characters. The worst I've ever seen a player get was when given an opportunity to compare notes with a college of arcane casters, one of my players went and got the recipes for every potentially-destructive spell he could find. And yet for some reason wasn't interested in a spell about turning night into day and vice versa. Probably because in its current state, the spell required several TONS of crushed diamonds to activate. I mean sure it was reusable since it didn't consume the ingredients when activated, but that's a LOT of diamonds.

Also, I'll be honest, the spell recipe is based entirely on one of my favorite MineCraft mods, which adds spell forms to the game.
Scaled_One 1st Feb 2012, 12:02 AM edit delete reply
Sounds like Marrik after I'd had him get irritated at the cleric's whining at how he was tainted evil unforgivable irredeemable unless he turned away from making dead things dance around.

We ended up in a fight with a lich somehow winning in spite of two of our party members dying. While the cleric was reviving them Marrik had rizen up a mass of corpses that hadn't been brought into the fight (guessing they were the reserves or somesuch) had them tidy up the place and had several of them bring things to the party while he built a throne of bones (to replace the one our barbarian used as a club.)

By the time the Cleric was done with the grunt work of reviving and tending to wounded Marrik had a new tower in the process of being repaired, a workforce, a grand hall decorated with the bones of fallen enemies arranged in mosaic patterns (think the paris underground) along the wals, and directing construction on defenses from his throne of bones that ended up turning what was planned to be a tooth and nail siege into a cakewalk.

Sad encounter ended with Marrik passing judgement on the captain of the troops that had, up till that point, been built up as Mr. Badass ruining the lives and welfare of Everything that was thrown against him.

Cleric was displeased with the poor sod being used as a step and fetchet.
Guest 31st Jan 2012, 11:42 PM edit delete reply
For the whole alignment thing we need to look no further then the player controlling Rainbow Dash. This player all about the kill stuff and get xp and loot and picks CE for similar reasons some people play CN. No restrictions on what you can do at any given point.

As for why she waited for the Shadow Bolts to go hostile before attacking, you have to go back the beginning of the encounter where she does a ready action to attack at the first sign of hostility. During the entire conversation she still has that ready action prepared, then taunts and insults the Shadow Bolts with the hopes they go hostile, triggering the prepared action. This gives Rainbow Dash free attacks on the Shadow Bolts, dispatching them before they even get to roll initiative. What the Shadow Bolts had to say did not matter to Rainbow Dash at all. It was all about tricking them into triggering the ready action.

Well played Rainbow Dash. Well played.
Steel 1st Feb 2012, 12:11 AM edit delete reply
I have always looked at Alignments not as rules but and pardon the qoute, more like guide lines. Lets take my LG Paladin for instance, I try very VERY hard to uphold the spirt of what it means to be Lawful and Good. I try to give my mortal foes a chance to surrender (demons and undead get the sword no matter what) I have very keen objections about using dragon bits as arms and armor on the lines that I would be pissed if my body had been ransaked for parts (got a divine letter saying it was ok) and in short I try to be a wise and just warrior trying to protect those that cannot defend them selves. I would be the first guy to fight a Lawful STUPID paladin cause they cause more evil and heart ache then lawful evil Anti Paladins. Course then there was my pretty Chaotic Champs guy who once distracted a God by taking him bar hopping...followed by PEOPLE hoping "Me: Bet you can't jump over those old people. Other PC: Whos side are you ON!?
Me: MINE!
Kaleopolitus 1st Feb 2012, 1:37 AM edit delete reply
Kaleopolitus
That... Is awesome!
Shikome Kido Mi 1st Feb 2012, 2:10 AM edit delete reply
Well, that just means you're doing it right. Unless you're an outsider (and sometimes not even then) alignment is just a description of how you generally act. Being a person means sometimes you make mistakes or get pushed too far, but alignment is a broad picture of the values the character usually behaves within.

When a lawful good character sees the Law and Good values they hold clash, they have to pick one over the other. But that doesn't automatically make them Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral (that takes a pattern of behavior or something very extreme), it just makes them a person who had to deal with a personal conflict.
Panoptes 1st Feb 2012, 3:55 PM edit delete reply
I've always interpreted the "middle value" of alignment systems (neutral, chaotic, etc.) as being more like "the character doesn't care either way". So the Good/Evil/Neutral set would be more like moral/immoral/amoral. Players of moral characters try to be good, players of immoral characters try to be bad, and players of amoral characters just do whatever without regard for good and bad.

The "players of" part is important to me, since I see alignment as more of a metagaming element than an actual RP element. Nevermind the oddity of a Chaotic character willingly associating with any kind of categorization ("Don't try to label me, man!"); I think the very idea of actual people saying something like "Hi there, I'm Lawful Evil, what's your alignment?" is complete and utter nonsense, and what are we trying to roleplay if not believable people in a fantasy environment? No decent villain thinks of him or herself as being evil--generally they think they're doing what's right. I think Gabe from Penny Arcade recently said something along the lines of "That's what makes villains so f---ing scary," and I wholeheartedly agree. Granted he said that in the context of the Dark Side of the Force rather than RP alignments, but whatever.

I think the biggest thing with alignments for me is that a character's alignment is something that character's player should know but the character him/herself (and the other players) should not. What kind of character they are playing should become clear given how their choices and RP.

And if it doesn't, they're probably just Boring Neutral or something :)
IJffdrie 1st Feb 2012, 7:44 PM edit delete reply
And this discussion is why I always use a better-defined alignment system. In the current campaign the alignment system is relative to the local religion, where good is how much you follow the ethics of that specific religion and lawful is how much you follow the rules.
David Foxfire 1st Feb 2012, 11:24 PM edit delete reply
This is where I differ from 4E, it's linear (Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil) alignment scale. Granted it's streamlined for easier play, just like everything else that's 4E, but it's much too simplistic. With the more classic bi-linear scale (Lawful-Chaotic and Good-Evil) you have a lot more leeway. In the classic scale, I see RD as Chaotic Neutral, which falls into Unaligned in 4E.

Personally I'd switch brands and say that RD's Alignment is actually Red-Black, but that's just me. (I'm writing a D&D story and planning a D&D campaign with Magic: The Gathering elements, fyi)
sjosten 1st Feb 2012, 11:38 PM edit delete reply
See this is why I play using a rule system without alignments. Too much discussion about what you can or can't do. More importantly, there's stuff you can't do in the first place.
Shikome Kido Mi 2nd Feb 2012, 1:56 AM edit delete reply
Nonsense. You can do anything. Your aligment changes to reflect your actions, not vice versa (in the absence of magical compulsions like a Helm of Opposite Alignment or the like).
kriss1989 2nd Feb 2012, 12:49 AM edit delete reply
I disagree strongly with people that are saying 'RD should have betrayed the party to be evil'. I'm saying this from personal experience when I played a NE fighter in a generally good party. I was loyal, a bit confrontational, not to interested in diplomacy, and advocated brutal tactics. The other PCs never even suspected until a good while later (about 5-6 dungeons) when a wandering NPC Paladin detected I was Evil. When the PCs called foul because I didn't act out my alignment, I gave a quick little speech. "Lets see, I use my strength to destroy those who oppose me, I engage in the slaughter and pillaging of other sentient species, I advocate the use of unnecessary force and unfair fights, and I am part of a group of people that defy conventional authority and kill anyone that stands in the way of our goals. What part of that made you think I was good?"
Kaleopolitus 2nd Feb 2012, 1:50 AM edit delete reply
Kaleopolitus
... Just how far did their jaws fall open? Two inches? Three?
Because, they got owned.
kriss1989 4th Feb 2012, 7:37 PM edit delete reply
Yes, and I remember the strangled sound Dave made as he tried to work this out with his brain. It's been over 8 years and it still brings a giant smile to my face. Only now, years later, does the proper meme exist to show what I did. *trollface*
RealityCheck 15th Oct 2013, 12:45 AM edit delete reply
I'm kinda taking issue that at least two of the party are EVIL aligned. WTH, author.
Disloyal Subject 16th Oct 2013, 11:37 PM edit delete reply
He didn't come up with that. Read the first few pages' author commentary.